The future of biometric technology in UK public safety: what are the current takeaways?
The next 5-10 years will see a revolution in biometric technology. These advancements promise to make biometric systems more effective and user-friendly. In policing, many biometric systems are used for identification (one-to-many matching) and verification (one-to-one matching). Identification is more common in scenarios like analyzing CCTV footage to find suspects, whereas verification might be used at borders to confirm an individual’s identity.
However, there remains a debate about biometric technology's scientific validity (in certain cases) and ethical use.
A recent report by the Alan Turing Institute (the Institute) sheds light on what’s ahead for biometrics in the UK, especially in policing and law enforcement.
Known for its research in data science and artificial intelligence (AI), the Institute conducted this study using insights from existing literature, interviews with 35 experts, a workshop involving police, government, and regulator officials, and findings from a public survey with 662 participants.
The main takeaway was that the revision of existing frameworks has been particularly challenging due to ongoing disagreements over the definitions of biometric technologies. The Institute highlights the need to broaden the horizons of biometric data to include age estimation, emotion recognition, and demographic categorization. Experts from the Institute suggest understanding biometric technologies as a spectrum, which would help revise regulatory frameworks to address new issues that arise.
For us at Pimloc, the report is an important piece of literature - it addresses both the promising advancements, as well as the challenges that need to be tackled to ensure ethical and effective use of biometric technology. Here are some of the interesting takeaways from this report.
The double-edged sword of biometric technology in law enforcement
Biometric systems promise great benefits, but they also come with significant risks. Critics point out technical flaws and potential human rights violations, and in certain cases, some systems may not even be scientifically valid. For instance, emotion recognition technology has been criticized for its lack of scientific grounding, which can lead to false readings and discriminatory outcomes. The Institute's report echoes these concerns, emphasizing the importance of rigorous scientific validation and ethical considerations in deploying such technologies.
While live facial recognition offers advantages to law enforcement by enabling real-time identification of suspects, it also raises serious ethical concerns. With the EU planning a general ban on live facial recognition, this means that law enforcement agencies may lose a powerful tool for identifying suspects in real-time, as seen in cases like the Metropolitan Police's use of live facial recognition to catch suspects at public events. The report suggests that while facial recognition can be a valuable tool, its use must be regulated properly to prevent misuse.
The challenge lies in balancing biometrics with individual rights.
In practice, this means ensuring that systems like facial recognition are used responsibly and transparently. For law enforcement, this involves strict adherence to ethical guidelines and robust regulatory frameworks to prevent misuse. While facial recognition can enhance public safety by quickly identifying suspects, it must be used responsibly to avoid wrongful identification and surveillance overreach. If biometric systems are used responsibly and ethically, they will help mitigate risks while maximizing their potential to enhance public safety. However, as the report points out, the line between ethical and unethical use is not always clear-cut, and this leads to disagreements across various countries about whether FRT should be part of law enforcement's toolbox.
Public opinion and the future of biometrics
The public is cautiously optimistic about biometrics. The report reveals that:
60% of respondents are comfortable with identification systems like facial recognition in crowded areas.
Only 29% support inferential systems such as polygraphs.
Trust in public sector use is high, with 79% trusting police forces and 66% the NHS.
Trust drops significantly for commercial entities.
A notable 57% are uncomfortable with biometric data sharing between police and the private sector. This discomfort hints at a fear of blurred lines between public safety and commercial interests - which can potentially lead to data misuse.
A high level of trust in public sector use suggests that people believe these institutions are more likely to handle their data responsibly. In contrast, the lower trust in commercial entities highlights concerns about profit-driven motives, which potentially compromise privacy and ethical standards.
Public sentiment is vital for policymakers and developers and will shape the regulatory landscape and influence how these technologies are integrated into everyday life.
It’s time for a regulatory overhaul
The Institute suggests that the UK's current laws on biometrics are outdated and inadequate. Existing laws fail to distinguish between well-established, scientifically validated systems and novel, untested technologies.
The Institute calls for updated legislation and new codes of practice that address specific risks and purposes. They highlight that consistent cross-sector standards and mandatory independent audits are essential to ensure accountability and trustworthiness. This regulatory gap is particularly problematic because it means that all biometric technologies are treated the same under the law, regardless of their reliability or the risks they pose. For example, well-established systems like fingerprinting, which have a long history of use and validation, are regulated in the same way as newer, less-proven technologies like emotion recognition. This not only affects public perception but also hinders the development and deployment of innovative technologies that could enhance public safety.
In practice, clearer regulations would help law enforcement agencies understand the boundaries and appropriate uses of different biometric technologies. It would also reassure the public that robust safeguards are in place, thereby increasing trust in these systems. With the rapid pace of technological advancement, having a flexible and adaptive regulatory framework is essential for effectively managing both the benefits and risks of biometric technology.
The future of biometric technology in UK policing holds immense promise but also presents challenges. The Alan Turing Institute’s report offers vital insights for steering through this intricate and ever-evolving terrain. By broadening our understanding, addressing risks, and implementing robust regulations, we can maximize biometrics while safeguarding public trust and individual rights.